Creation, a British film about Charles Darwin, has failed to find a US distributor because "his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences."
The British Telegraph writes that Creation "details Darwin's 'struggle between faith and reason' as he wrote On The Origin of Species."
The film has been sold all over the world, from Australia to Scandinavia, but has been considered 'too controversial' for religious and fundamentalist America.
"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up," says Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation.
"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America," added Thomas.
America and Saudi Arabia are not only allies. The two countries are quite similar when it comes to extreme religious beliefs and fundamentalism.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 47
I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. People were far more religious in those days than they are today. But, people were also far more accepting of other ideas in those days than they are today. The reason that the civil rights movement was able to make so many gains in those years was because there was a basic respect for fairness and honesty at the time. Today's anti-intellectual and anti-science dominance over the culture has created so much confusion that most people aren't sure what to believe. It isn't their fault. It all began in the mid-1970s when the "Moral Majority" was formed. Their express mission was to shout down and dampen any beliefs that did not serve their interests. Of course, the fact is that while most people tend to be moral, there really isn't a majority of moral thinkers who believe anything close to these "Moral Majority" types. In our culture, anyone with a megaphone can exercise free speech rights. But, any organization that wants to keep free speech from happening can find ways to shut it down. So, our wonderful US Constitution is clear. We have the right to live out lives according the way that we see fit. But, our culture seeks to separate whose values take dominance over all others. It is this tension that keeps Americans from seeing Creation. I think that the movie would enjoy success in this country. Unfortunately, there are many groups and individuals who don't want that to happen. The film industry and the overall media is intimidated by these groups and individuals. How very sad for Americans who supposedly live in the "land of the free . . . ."
I blame organized religion for this. Again: There is no such thing as a Moral majority. There NEVER WAS. We are a diverse group of individuals who don't even really TEACH the constitution in schools except in one grade year. This needs to be reinforced in schools. Spread the learning of the constitution out so that students have to really learn the whole thing--what it means to them, and what it means for others. We don't have family conversations about what it says anymore. We don't have family conversations about anything except--we must be right! Glenn Beck sayid so today.
We are no longer The Land of the Free; Nor are we the Home of the Brave. The Religious right are trying to morph us into another religious zealot nation. And it scares the $hit out of me.
Wilka
All these government-sponsored propaganda photos of a so-called moon landing and a Presidential birth certificate don't fool us. No sirree. None of that fuzzy math stuff for us.
Most of your posts are amusingly silly, pompous and self-righteous (and have nothing to do with reality) but this one is just plain stupid. Think for a damn second before you write something like:
"America and Saudi Arabia are not only allies. The two countries are quite similar when it comes to extreme religious beliefs and fundamentalism."
Even though it may make your usual audience happy, it makes you look, well, dumb.
You seem to be a model example of what Lenin described as "useful idiots." But then again, that's a good company to be in, right?
Starting with B. Shaw to the most of European left - one thing in common, all absolutely convinced that they are right, always and about everything, and are absolutely blinded by their messed up ideology. You fit.
I enjoyed your unwarranted attack on Savo. Did she say something that you disagreed with? Like you are the authority on Dumb? That may well be, but you'll have to state your creds to be believed here on G.
Usually, a quality rebuttal contains some facts or maybe a statement with some background information or data--to refute the position of the writer. All you offered was a bunch of name calling.
So, nobody cares.
Wilka
I agree that there are so many in this country that close the door on anything that might anger some members of society, not because it is a literal attack on them, but because it is contrary to what they believe in. Although evolution is a theory, there is some physical evidence that support this theory. Creationism is a belief, a religious model for a philosophy of life on earth. These two can run side by side, especially if you can fathom that God's "day" might just be slightly different from an "Earth day." The Bible also speaks through parables, and perhaps much of the information was intended to help mankind understand God in man's way, another words, in a language mankind could comprehend. But creationism is not a theory with proofs, but with faith. Perhaps God was waiting for us to discover the wonders of nature in our own time, and if you look at what we call "the laws of nature" they are so spectacular and incredible, so precise and meticulous, that they could well be consistent with the Christian Bible.
Still, to simply refuse any historically based film solely on the merit that it must fly in the face of Christianity, is almost sacrilegious in itself. Burying our heads in the sand do no make it false or untrue.
I do agree with your final statement, that Christian fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism do have more in common, at least in deniability, despite their ideological differences. Both are detrimental to moving us closer to understanding nature and life on earth, and if it is God's laws that govern nature, then those denials take us further - not closer - to God.
That's what I meant by "simplistic".
Anyway, I tend to speak up when a group is unfairly characterized, even if it's a group as fashionable to bash as Americans are in some countries of the world. (And believe me, I hear enough of this crap when I'm in Europe.) It's wrong, whomever it's done to. It's never true. It's more of the same "we and them" mess that we as liberals should know better than to reproduce.
Food for thought, i believe.
Peace.
Yea right. Give me a break.
We've had the "Last Temptation of Chrirst" and "The Da Vinci Code" shown in the US.
I'd say these were very controversial. Not to mention they were not very popular anyway.
The movie "Hounddog" with a child rape scene apparantly isn't controversial enough for the US but a movie on Charles Darwin is?
No I don't think so. In all likelyhood no US distributor has picked it up because they are afraid it will flop. For the most part the movie industry has done its best to belittle God and the "religious" so why would a movie about Charles Darwin's falling away from God be "controversial"? I think in this instance it is all about profit.
I will add, "flop" is not about good or bad movie, its about whether or not it will make money. Charles Darwin has not been taught much in the US (as a historical figure), simply demonized as someone with a "bad theory". It is hard to make a bio-pic work when the character is largely unknown. The struggles he faced will be hard to put in context for the average american. Too bad .... I'd like to see it -- perhaps on DVD.
It's just like Saudi Arabia here--as a woman, I had to risk being arrested while driving my kids to school today, and as for what will happen to those high school girls I just saw, who were not only not wearing a veil, but hardly much of anything else, is too horrible to imagine...
(And now that I've said that, I will disappear, never to be heard from again.)
It's perfect for America, should one stop and think for a moment. (In this regard, I find the British press a particularly inappropriate source to comment on the climate in America.) It's hot as a 4th of July firecracker, stateside, and is bound to fuel debate from both sides of the evolution question. I say, let's have it, at $9 a pop, and we'll see where turtles came from.
It depends on who's commenting, I think. Some people in Europe think they sound more cultured and intellectual if they engage in a simplistic, clichéd, they-don't-even-speak-good-English-there bashing of America--ending up saying little about America and more about their own intellectual poverty.
"All scholars know that several prominent scientists - Lamarck in particular-developed elaborate systems of evolutionary thought before Darwin. Many however, suppose that Darwin was the true originator of his own particular theory about how evolution occurred-natural selection. Yet, by his own belated admission (in the historical preface added to later editions of the Origin of Speices), Darwin allowed that two authors had preceded him in formulating the principle of natural selection. " - Stephen Jay Gould, The Flamingo's Smile, 1985) p.335.
"Darwinians cannot simply claim that natural selection operates since everyone, including Paley [Creationist William Paley] and the natural theologians, advocated selection as a device for removing unfit individuals at both extremes and perserving, intact and forever, the created type.
Failure to recongnize that all creationists accepted selection in this negative role led Eiseley to conclued falsely that Darwin had "borrowed" the principle of natural selction from his predecessor E. Blyth. The Reverend William Paley's classic work Natural Theology, published in 1803, also contains many references to selective elimination." - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory," Science 216 (April 23, 1982): 380
The Origin of Species has become the bible for the fundamental evolutionists. Yet, the book contains no documented evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
"In fact, one can search the whole book in vain for any real scientific evidences of evolution-evidences that have been empirically verified and have stood the test of time. No proof is given anywhere-no examples are cited of new species known to have been produced by natural selection, no transitional forms are shown, no evolutionary mechanisms are documented. Actually, the whole book is most notable for its complete lack of documentation. It is all speculation, special pleading, ad hoc assumptions. None of the Origin's evidences or arguments have stood up under modern critical analysis, even by other evolutionists. One can only marvel that such a book could have had so profound an influence on the subsequent history of human life and thought.
As far as the main thesis of the book - natural selection- is concerned, the idea was by no means original with Chalres Darwin, though he took credit for it." - Dr. Henry Morris, "The Long War Against God", (Master Books, 2000), p. 156
Darwin had doubts about the loving creator God because he experienced hardship in his life. Most noteably the death of his daughter Anne. He was searching for an explanation of all creation that excluded the God. It appears that is what the movie is about. I have no desire to see a movie about a man who was so lacking in faith in God. Too depressing.
There is an essential difference between Science and Religion. When there's a search for the truth about evolution, the scientific way can be debated, discussed, developed; not one human can 'know' everything. Religious thinkers start with the premise that you have 'faith' first then work backwards, suggesting everything turns around one central (but unprovable) 'truth' and that there is a deity. This is an idea first thought of by early humans as a way of explaining (to themselves) the inexplicable. Educated people know a lot more nowadays; we are no longer able to fall off the edge of the world, angels do not live above the clouds, demons do not live in dark places and the dead do not come back to haunt us.
It might get us all somewhere if we discussed more the activities of the living, those who are sick and need the benefits of medical evolution, and the activities of leaders including those who ignor the rules of elections and those who do not take care of their own people.
I have friends in Copenhagen who like this saying. I think that one issue in America is that our laws clearly state that everyone practices religion according to the way they see fit. But, our culture has been inundated with religious bullying for many years. In fact, usually, bullies are the first to bring up "God's will and God's plan." Personally, I believe there must be a higher power and maybe, "God" is the correct name for it. But, it seems to me that we are given brains and abilities for a purpose. When people fail to think and learn, they are shaming God in my opinion. Most religious people in America do not subscribe to this belief, however.
Darwin did not come up with the hypothesis of evolution. Even Stephen Jay Gould is willing to admit Darwin only popularized the evolution hypothesis through his writings. Darwin had no education in science. He was an apostate theologan.
The "discovery" of natural selection is often credited to Darwin, yet the concept was promoted by Creationist William Paley in his book Natural Theolgy published long before Origins.
BTW. Natural selection has never created a new animal or plant kind. In fact natural selection would be the opposite of "evolution." Molecules to man evolution would require a gain in genetic information. Natural selection results in less genetic information in the gene pool of a species or kind. There are no known processes by which information can be created. Information comes from existing information. Variations within species and kinds are the result of the expression of existing genetic information.
As for your BTW--new information appears through mutations, some of which involve copies of genes that had been reduplicated and the new copies are available to take on new tasks without affecting the functioning of the old ones. Natural selection picks out of the chaotic offerings those that are advantageous (at that given time, in that given environment). This is very clear if you actually read about biology, rather than read anti-evolution pamphlets that choose to ignore what we do know quite well and repeat the same old talking points that have been refuted thousands of times.
(Natural selection sucks, to tell you the truth, whether it's Paleyan or Darwinian. But it sure looks like how life on this planet works.)
No creationist denies the the "work" of Natural Selection. But natural selection and mutations can not explain how life began or nor supports the molecules to man evolution. Natural selection results in less genetic information. There are some highly controversial alleged cases of muations that caused a gain in genetic information. However, none of these alleged cases caused a new function or benefit for the organism. The vast amount of mutations result in a loss of genetic information. Mutations can even benefit an organism, but in order for an organism to change into one kind to another kind genetic information needs to be gained not lossed.
"repeat the same old talking points that have been refuted thousands of times."
Can you give some examples of what you are talking about?
But Darwin did much more than any of his predecessors to integrate these various ideas into a true theory (in the scientific sense of the word, not in the pejorative "it's just a theory" sense), showing how evolution by natural selection explained many things about the biological world that had previously been mysterious. In fact, they answered questions that hadn't even been asked at that point. It expanded our understanding of biology (and geology too) vastly. Correspondingly he uncovered an avalanche of evidence in favor of evolution, across multiple disciplines. He was an extraordinarily meticulous observationalist, and knew well how to test his theory against evidence. The Morris quote above is an utter misrepresentation--Darwin lays down chapter upon chapter of evidence, it's just that Morris won't acknowledge it. It is the strength of Darwin's argument that is why he is rightly regarded as the father of the theory of evolution as we know it today.
Did he get every detail right? Certainly not. His ideas about inheritance were nothing like we have today, but the theory does not rest on them by any means. The evidence for evolution still stands, and our modern understanding of inheritance supports his theory better than his own did. It's analogous to how Copernicus's own specific theory was flawed in its details, yet the core of his idea was fundamentally right, and for that reason we still talk about the "Copernican revolution". And Darwin's work doesn't address "molecules-to-man" evolution any more than Copernicus addressed the origin of the solar system. That sort of work had to await later scientists.
For those of you academically-minded, Philip Kitcher's article "Darwin's Achievement" is a great article that gets into many of the details I couldn't possibly elaborate on here. It's available in a few philosophy of science anthologies. Get over to your university library and read it!
We need to define what evolution is.
I don't consider evolution to be synonyms with natural selection. Variations within species and kinds are often shown as proof of "evolution".
Less not confuse natural or unnatural selection for that matter with the "evolution" hypothesis meaning that animals all have one common ancestor.
This is a common ploy of evolutionists. They talk about the effects of natural selection and claim it is proof of molecules to man evolution.
"Correspondingly he uncovered an avalanche of evidence in favor of evolution"
Can you name some evidence Darwin revealed in Origins?
Darwin offered speculation but not documented evidence.
(Evolution is not about how life began--but you know that.)
(Great post, Dave S.)
The human time scale is too short to directly observe speciation in all but a few cases; evolution is not a fast process, as all acknowledge. However, there are other forms of evidence besides direct observation in the field, and those all overwhelmingly point to common ancestry. Biogeography (which is what first tipped Darwin off), paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology (this evidence has lately become particularly strong), biochemistry, and genetics all point overwhelmingly to the common ancestry of all life. The one admitted gap in your "molecules to man" story is at the very beginning, as we don't know the molecular origin of life. There is no particular reason to believe it's due to anything but natural processes, but we don't have enough information yet on which to decide what specific processes were involved.
As for what Darwin presented as evidence, he had examples from all the areas I mention above with the exception of biochemistry and genetics (by which I mean particularly post-Waston and Crick genetics). The earliest form of evidence that began his speculations about evolution (before the observations he made on the voyage of the Beagle Darwin was in fact a creationist) was the observation that species on coastal islands resembled nearby mainland species, though their habitats might not be that similar. The island species were descended from migrants from the mainland, thus the resemblance. Were they specifically created to live where they did, there would have been no reason for the species to bear any relationship with the mainland one. Darwin observed this on his voyage, and it's a pattern that's repeated throughout the world. It's just one of many lines of evidence that point to what Darwin called "descent with modification".
Gene duplication Aniko is just that duplication of existing information. The information is already there but is not always expressed. Dawkins does not give any example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.
Natural selection changes what genes are expressed. Mutations also don't increase the genetic information in a gene pool. It does not matter how many millions or billions of years go by. If a process causes a loss of genetic information in a gene pool a new organism can not "evolve" into a new kind of organism.
"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this." - Dr Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology
Darwin's Origin discussed changes with in species but he nor has anyone ever documented a case where one organism "evolved" into a new organism. Evolution is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.
"There is no particular reason to believe it's due to anything but natural processes, but we don't have enough information yet on which to decide what specific processes were involved."
I'd have to disagree. Believing all that we see and experience came about without an intelligent designer does not make sense. I don't have enough faith to believe everything came from nothing. Nothing in this world goes from randomness to order without energy and information. Where did the matter, energy, and information come from?
He says mostly likely from outer space. He believes life came to earth from some other galaxy. But that does not really answer the question. So where did the life from outer space come from?
Dawkins does admit there is as much as a 1% chance that life was created by God.
The theory of evolution is independent of the origin of life, and is most definitely independent of the origin of the universe. You could think (as some do) that God created the universe or the first cell, but that evolution is what led to the diversity of life from there. This is why not all evolutionary biologists, maybe even not the majority of them, are atheists! However life or the universe itself started, the evidence that life diversified by an evolutionary process is undeniable.
That being said, I did claim that I believe we'll ultimately find that life had a naturalistic origin (I'll reiterate: an independent claim from the evolutionary one that all life shares a common ancestry). To that you say: "Where did the matter, energy, and information come from?" Well, the energy came from the sun and the matter came from the earth, because after all I didn't make any claim for the origin of the solar system. Of course you're driving at the origin of the universe itself. For this, beyond the Big Bang theory (which is based on observations) we can't use science to go. There is probably no ultimate answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?" You apparently think that God is an answer, but to me it just pushes the question back one level. You postulate that information cannot appear from nowhere, but this argument just makes God impossible as well!
In any case this is all irrelevant to biological evolution, which does not attempt to make any account of ultimate origins, just to explain species as we see them today.
Incidentally in another comment you mention that Dawkins thinks life most likely comes from outer space. Can you provide a citation? I know this is a theory that's out there, but not one that I am aware that Dawkins subscribes to. It does not appear, as far as I can tell, in The Ancestor's Tale.
I should probably stop there, but I can't resist commenting on the "information" issues too. You quote a Werner Gitt, but without knowing more about what he means by "information" it is irrelevant. After all, since the observed facts demonstrate that evolution has indeed happened, either his theory of information is simply incorrect, or it is simply inapplicable to biology.
Oh, you also claim nobody has seen an organism evolve into another organism. That's badly stated, as nobody claims individual organisms evolve, but rather species. And if you substitute the word "species" for "organism" in your statement, it is simply false. The appearance of new species and the change of species over time have both been documented.
Chemistry is a science. Evolution is a hypothesis not a science as many try to claim. (Once again I am not talking about natural selection and variations within kinds. All creationists I know of don't deny changes within kinds.)
Evolution is dependant on the origin of the universe and the origin of life in particular. The two can't be separated. At some point in the evolutionary hypothesis there had to be a beginning. Claiming God created the first few living cell, cells, organism, or organims then "evolution" took it from there makes it look like God didn't know what he was doing. The evolutionary hypothesis with its billions of years of random variation, struggle for existence, suffering and death and extinction should not be credited to God. Evolution would be the most cruel and inefficient not to mention the most improbable process to populate a world.
"the evidence that life diversified by an evolutionary process is undeniable."
Yet all "evidence" is only specualtion not documentation. You talk about species and yet scientists do not completely agree on how to define species. There are about 7 different concepets of what defines speciation. And by some definitions new species do "appear" over time. But a new species does not mean a new "kind" of organism has "evolved." Just because organisms that could at one time interbreed no longer can produce offspring together does not mean they are no longer the same "kind" of animal.
"You postulate that information cannot appear from nowhere, but this argument just makes God impossible as well!"
God transcends his creation. This is not to say God is not active in his creation when he so chooses. God is not bound by the laws of nature that he created.
"Incidentally in another comment you mention that Dawkins thinks life most likely comes from outer space. Can you provide a citation?"
Dawkins Space Alien Theory Video
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
"Stein, in his inimitable way, tries to corner Dawkins into acknowledging the possible existence of God—or at least some sort of intelligent designer behind it all. At first, Dawkins doesn't budge, and is incredulous at Stein's line of questions. But Stein, deadpan yet persistent, latches on to Dawkins' comment that he's 99 percent certain there's no God—and runs with it. "Why not 97 percent?" Stein asks. "Why not 49 percent?"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html?start=2
As for the rest of your comment, it simply displays little understanding of how science works.
Your link to Dawkin's very own words shows that Expelled got it right!
He now claims, "I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously"
The problem is it was his theory. Dawkins is the one who brought it up in his interview. Now he is trying to back track saying he was "pretending." And he claims creationists are dishonest! So which is it? Was he serious about his Alien theory or was be being dishonest?
Dawkins also writes: "And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. That is what "improbable" means, as creationists never tire of assuring us (they wrongly think Darwinian natural selection is a matter of chance)."
This is a complete misconception of what creationist believe about natural selection. Of course there is chance and probablity involved in what genetic information will be passed on to the next generations. I don't know how any person with a very basic understanding of genetics could not understand this. When some traits are not passed on to the next generation because of selection pressure the genetic information for the trait can be completly lost from the gene pool. Often these traits are lost because enviromental conditions make it difficult for organisms with the particular trait to prosper. But chance is involved just the same.
Creationists don't have any problems with natural selection. They have problems with evoluitonists who claim it is the process which makes evolution "work." The only thing evolutionists are lacking is any documented evidence that stands up to scientific methods of testing.
Dawkin's then writes, "In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things."
How can a process that is the "very opposite of a chance process" be the "ultimate explanation for complex, improbable things"
By definition something that is improbable can only be accomplished through a chance process. His statement is not logical.
I have a pretty good grasp on how "the study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" works. The evolution hypothesis does not fall into the category of facts or truths systemaitcally arranged and showing the operation of general laws. It is speculation. That's why Dawkins admits evolution is one of the "improbable things."
Ever consider a biopic of an old British scientist just wouldn't be that interesting to American audiences? Can't picture it lasting more than 2 weeks.